Exponenet falsified data

Exponent created all of their transient curves with a "simulation" that in no way simulated the actual game-day conditions. Their curves are derived from an isolated football sitting on a stand – rather than balls that were kept in a bag, as they were leading up to and during halftime of the AFC Championship Game. Again, Exponent falsified data that they almost certainly knew was inherently flawed before they even falsified it. Truly mind-blowing.

Click to expand...

http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/9/1/...their-figures-to-smear-brady-and-the-patriots

Still further evidence that the NFL predetermined the conclusion.

Never mind their stupid proxy for the cold rain, just spraying the footballs.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Never mind their stupid proxy for the cold rain, just spraying the footballs.

Click to expand...

"spraying the footballs?"...they probably just pissed on them...

If Berman orders a neutral arbitrator he has to make the decision that the Wells Report is bogus and it's contents cannot be used on any level.

If this was actually a real-life trial, this is clearly manipulation and falsifying of evidence.

Vacate.Now

PatsFanSince74 said:

"spraying the footballs?"...they probably just pissed on them...

Click to expand...

Then it would have inflated as the liquid would have been sightly less than 98.6 degrees

Remember guys even through all their tests and data they only found an unaccounted for .2 psi.

It doesn't matter and nobody will know or care because BSPN and NFLN are up the MFLs arse. "The Patriots are cheater because we say so.".

Story gets more and more ridiculous by day.

The balls did not sit in a bag. They were exposed to the elements.

This stopped being about science long ago.

Another article by Steve McIntyre excoriating Exponent.

http://business.financialpost.com/f...-science-could-have-wrongly-smeared-tom-brady

BTW Headsmart Lab documented that if the leather got wet enough it would affect psi due to expansion of the leather.

Yeah, that's bad. The conditions for the simulation didn't bother me that much. Using a flawed model that does not reflect observed reality is problematic, but it's also a central point of literally every economic model (most of which are garbage, it must be said). As long as you lay out the assumptions, there's not really a problem there if it can be picked apart.

But truncating the curves on the visualization of the model's outcomes and then using those to make conclusions regarding the hypothesis is very, very bad.

PatsWickedPissah said:

Never mind their stupid proxy for the cold rain, just spraying the footballs.

Click to expand...

No kidding. Spraying a ball with a spray bottle in no way simulates what happens to a ball on the field. The ball is being rained on for a minute or so, landing in and rolling around in soaking wet grass with big dudes landing on it, and then it is still being rained on as it is dried off. That simulation right there has to tell you that they were trying to shape the reults. They did this test after HeadSmart Labs did a simulation showing that a wet football could drop another 0.7 psi. That's why there was some variation with the balls and a few of them fell slightly below what the IGL predicted. Exponent did not even consider the fact the Patriots dominated the TOP near the end of the half when it was raining the hardest. Such dishonesty.

It might not be a representative test, but that doesn't mean data was falsified. Falsified means they reported something different than their instrumentation showed.

Not only that, I understand that exponent sprayed the balls then immediately wiped them off, negating most of the effect of wetting the balls

The other day I was curious why Exponent assumed the Colts balls were measure at the 8 minute mark when we know the refs were in the locker room for 13 1/2 minutes. Dean Snyder testified that if the Colts balls were measured at around the 11 minute mark they would have fallen in line with the Pats balls. On page about 400 of the testimony, the guy from Exponent responded to Snyder's point by testifying that they did not think it was reasonable for the refs to take four balls out of a bag, gauge them, other guys to write down the numbers, put the balls back in the bag, and walk out of the locker room in 2 1/2 minutes. Meanwhile, Exponent also said that it would be easy for one guy to remove 12 balls in a small bathroom, let air out of all 12, put all 12 back in the bag, and then walk out in 1 1/2 minutes. Such dishonesty. It is clear as day to any thinking person that Exponent was trying to shape their results.

They indirectly falsified info by using false information to slant the result. One example is presuming a 65 deg temp in the refs locker room rather than 72. That assumption caused the expected deflation to be underestimated.

JJDChE said:

It might not be a representative test, but that doesn't mean data was falsified. Falsified means they reported something different than their instrumentation showed.

Click to expand...

It's still dishonest.

McIntyre tried contacting the Princeton prof to get his reactions to the rebutalls. Did anyone hear if he got a response? More of these guys should contact that Princeton prof.

You mean cigarette smoke does cause cancer?

And asbestos is harmful to workers continually exposed to it?

I'm very upset, Exponent had me at PSI.